Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the first thing I want to do is take a minute to publicly thank the majority leader for the kindness he extended to me earlier when he announced the fact that I have cast the second-highest number of votes of any Senator from the State of New Jersey. Mr. President, I am as surprised as anybody in this Chamber that this event took place and that kind of longevity has been extended to me by the people of New Jersey. I now enter the middle of my 23rd year in the Senate and I want to continue to serve. But that is a discussion for another time. The majority leader was very generous in his comments about me. Coming from a person who has provided so much by way of leadership and contribution to the country as Harry Reid, it is a touching experience. We are busy, but Senator Reid took time out of the business of the day to note the fact that I had achieved that record. The biggest surprise of all is, for me, the fact that I have been in this Chamber as long as I have been. I spent 30 years building a company with a couple of colleagues. That is the legend of America--what can happen even if you are born poor but you have some assistance. I wore the uniform of this country proudly during World War II. I was a beneficiary of the GI Bill of Rights. That is how they defined the educational opportunity that was given. Mr. President, my surprise--my awe, if I may--was that I was able to go to Columbia University, a distinguished educational facility, which was something I never dreamed possible because of the humble roots that my family had. They gave me values--nothing of value but values. My parents' admonition throughout my life was to always be honest, always tell the truth, always work hard, and remember one thing, son: There are people as poor as we are. As difficult as it is at times, there are always people less fortunate. My grandmother had a little bank in the house, which we shared with her many times, in which we would put small coins, to be used for--I cannot say charity but for others who were less fortunate. So I stand in this Chamber at this moment, and I want to talk about something related to roots--to my roots. My father and my mother struggled to make a living. My father worked in the silk mills of Paterson, NJ, a textile city. Others like my dad and mother were brought to this country by their parents, hoping for an opportunity to make a living and to have some degree of opportunity. My father worked in the silk mill with a dear friend of his who was later very active in union organization. My father made a plea to his foreman for a holiday off. It was an important religious holiday. He wasn't looking for any pay, Heaven forbid. He just wanted to have the time off for observance of the holiday. He and his very close friend asked the foreman if it would be all right if they took the day off for the observance of the holiday, which was the week following. The reply was very quick: Oh, sure, you can take the day off, but don't come back to work here anymore. With that, you can imagine the view of my father and his friend not being able to continue a job that was scarce and difficult to get. So they waited, hat in hand. In those days, people would wear hats to work in common labor at a mill. They described that, hat in hand, the two of them nervously waited for the owner of the company to come by. They would not let them go into the owner's office. Heaven forbid, that is no place for people like you. But the owner was a kind, generous man. When he walked out, they stopped him and explained that they desperately wanted to take the holiday off, but they needed their jobs. The owner was a kind, sympathetic person, and he said: Take the time off, and you are going to be paid for that holiday. That was the beginning days of union representation in this country-- very active, very confrontational, very difficult, and sometimes violent. But my father saw and his friend saw that they had to have a better way to do things than stand hat in hand and beg for a day off. Fortunately, they found a kind man who listened and gave them the day off. But the experience was searing, and they never forgot that working people had to have representation. Both of them then became active in union organization. Those were difficult days. We have all heard stories about employees who wanted some representation, wanted a voice in how they were paid, wanted a voice in what conditions were like. My father worked in a mill. My father was a health faddist even in those days. He took very good care of himself. He was a man with muscles. He would go to the gym, and he would lift weights. He belonged to the local Y. He never smoked, was light on coffee, and no liquor. He died when he was 43 years old. He contracted cancer when he was 42. The cause was almost undeterminable, but they realized that there were materials they used when they worked with the silk to keep the silk brittle and to keep the machinery working that ultimately caused my father's cancer. His brother died at age 56 also from cancer. Their father died at age 52 also from cancer induced by the environment at the factory in which they worked. The fact is that people who work in places like this should have a voice--and we see disparities, such as taking 10 years to raise the minimum wage. It is time to give unions, to give working people a chance to have a voice in their work or their opportunity to take care of their families, or the opportunity, as my father said, to hold your head high, be proud, be proud you are a worker, be proud you are contributing something to your country. What we see now is distressing, which is why we are discussing freedom of choice for workers, to give them a chance have their voice heard without having to go through a hassle about whether they are organized. I have seen what happens. I ran a very big company. When I left the company, it had 16,000 employees. Today it has 40,000 employees, a company I started with 2 other poor kids from the neighborhood. We were always very conscious of our responsibility to our employees. That is why the company was so successful. It had the longest growth of any company in American history of 10 percent or more on the bottom line. We had a case in New Jersey where a bus driver was fired for being a union supporter and giving testimony to the National Labor Relations Board. Even as we gather here, we see that employers are still using all kinds of tactics to harass, threaten, or fire workers who try to exercise their right to form a union. Ninety-two percent of employers make their employees sit through one-sided, anti-union presentations, according to a study by Cornell University. The Cornell study also said that 78 percent of employers have supervisors hold repeated closed-door, one-on-one meetings with workers to intimidate them to oppose the union. I don't think those kinds of tactics are appropriate. Decent jobs are ever more scarce in this country as we ship so many jobs abroad, as technology--and I come from the computer business; I know something about technology--as technology takes jobs away from people whose only skills are manual skills, and they need a way to make a living. You don't have to be a new immigrant to need a job where you use your hands, use your body, or use your strength to make a living. But these jobs are going further and further afield because of the technology. We should not allow employers to prevent workers from having a greater voice in their workplace on issues of pay and benefits and working conditions. We can improve this situation by passing the Employee Free Choice Act to protect workers and to protect their rights--again I use the expression--hold their heads high, know they can provide for their families, know they don't have to apologize to their kids for having to work as hard as so many do, two jobs in many cases. The bill that is in front of us will let employees select a union if a majority signs cards saying they want representation. They don't want to take over the ownership of the company. They don't want to deprive senior executives from making their salaries or their benefits. When we see what is happening in America today, there is a frightening specter out there, and I talk as someone who came from the corporate boardroom. I can be accused of being a tree hugger because I care about the environment. I can be accused of other things. But I can't be accused of not understanding what it is like to run a business, a successful business. If people want representation, when we see that there are people in this country making $1.8 billion for a single year's work, and many others earning $240 million or more. The salaries are adequate enough, as they said in an article in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago, that if you took the combined wages of people who made $240 million or more in the year, you could pay 80,000 school teachers in the city of New York for 3 years. There are disparities, and what has to happen is that people who work for a living have to understand their work, their effort, their contribution to the country. We have Tom Brokaw here for lunch right now. He wrote a book, ``The Greatest Generation.'' What was it? It was working people who made the contribution. It was working people who on D-Day--I didn't arrive in Europe on D-Day; I arrived a little bit later--those who were there, those who were the heroes, those who saved their companions, working people. They are entitled to be heard. Workers cannot be hassled or harassed to be kept from expressing their interests in a union. This bill says employees can select a union as soon as a majority signs a card saying they want representation. Current law allows for this majority signup, but only at the employer's discretion. The employer can instead demand an election and use that time before that election to scare workers away from joining a union. The Employee Free Choice Act will protect and enhance the right of workers to join a union, and there is good reason for some to choose a union. As President Bush helps the wealthy get wealthier, helps the corporations develop ever more earnings, I see nothing wrong with that as long as there is a fairness, an equity. When a company such as ExxonMobil earns almost $40 billion in a year, and Americans pull up to the pump and very often they are giving away a significant part of their purchasing power at that gasoline pump, we have to be sure we don't totally demoralize the working people of this country. Union wages can help low- and middle-wage workers earn their way to new opportunities and financial stability. Everybody knows it costs more to live these days. It costs more to send a kid to college. It costs more to get health care. It costs more for gasoline. It costs more for mortgages. It costs more for everything. We have to make sure that the people who work for a living, who do the building, who do the lifting, are able to make a living. When it comes to wages, union wages are almost 30 percent higher than nonunion wages, and union workers are almost twice as likely to have employer-sponsored health benefits. In 2005, 1.3 million New Jersey residents were uninsured for health. That is 300,000 more residents than 5 years ago. Union membership can make a huge difference to them and their families. Hard-working Americans deserve these benefits. We need the Employee Free Choice Act so workers can express themselves without intimidation. They have to be certified if they make that kind of choice. But we also want employers to be accountable when they violate the law. This bill will strengthen penalties for employer violations of the National Labor Relations Act so that employers are deterred from breaking the law. Workers deserve an atmosphere where they can choose a union without intimidation or coercion. They need a strong law to allow them to make their own choice without interference from management. The Employee Free Choice Act is that law. It will give employees a stronger voice in shaping the workplace and will help employees earn more money, benefits, and improve their futures. I am proud to support this bill for New Jersey's and America's current union members and for those who want to unionize. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Permit people to make their choice and make it freely and not have to be worried about intimidation or harassment. If you want to join a union, simple: Fill out a card. Why should they be deprived from doing so for their future? I don't think they should be. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, right now, people are at gas stations across America, filling up cars and trucks to get to work, take their kids to school, and run their errands. In May of 2002, a gallon of gas cost $1.40. Today that same gallon of gas costs $3.22. In just 5 years, the price of gas has more than doubled. Gas isn't the only energy cost that has spiked in the last 5 years. In New Jersey, individuals, families, and businesses are paying 25 percent more for electricity than they were just 5 years ago. These high prices are hurting our families--families whose budgets are already stretched thin. We also know that our energy policies are hurting our environment. The emissions from our cars and trucks, electric utilities, and factories are causing global warming--a fact recently verified by a United Nations Panel on Climate Change. The energy bill before us marks the first serious attempt in years to address our energy crisis. First, it takes a measured but appropriate approach to improving CAFE standards governing the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks. Right now, Japan leads the world in fuel efficiency. Many of their cars and trucks get more than 40 miles per gallon. The United States is far behind. Our passenger cars have been stuck at CAFE standards of 27.5 miles per gallon since 1990--and our light trucks get just 21.6 miles per gallon. We must do better, and with this bill, we will. Our energy bill calls for increasing fuel efficiency to 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020. As we improve our fuel efficiency, we decrease both the amount of gas Americans have to pay for and the greenhouse gases our cars emit. But despite what many think, greenhouse gases don't only come from cars and trucks. Buildings have a significant impact on the environment and on the health of every American-- accounting for nearly 40 percent of America's greenhouse gases. The Federal Government is the largest owner and renter of buildings in the Nation and is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. In addition, poorly designed schools can cause the air inside to be unhealthy. This poor air quality increases childhood asthma. More than 67 percent of schools have a design problem that contributes to asthma. For those reasons, I introduced the High Performance Green Buildings Act, which is now included in the Energy bill. This legislation focuses on making our Federal buildings ``green'' and improving the environmental and health impacts of our schools. I worked with our former colleague, Senator Jeffords, on this bill in the past--and the language now in the Energy bill represents a collaborative effort between myself, Senator Boxer, and Senators Snowe and Warner. In comparison to standard buildings, the average green building has better air quality, uses 30 percent less energy, and results in nearly 40 percent fewer emissions. Green buildings also have smaller electric bills, which saves owners and tenants on their bottom lines. The Federal Government must lead by example and achieve those results for its buildings. Accordingly, my green buildings bill will direct the General Services Administration to use a green building certification that all Federal buildings should achieve. It also provides grants and voluntary guidelines for schools to lessen their environmental impacts--and improve the health of the students, teachers, and staff inside them. Finally, the bill calls for demonstration projects to show the public that green buildings are environmentally sound, benefit people's health, and are both cost-effective and practical. The States are doing their part. New Jersey and 21 other States have already signed bills similar to my legislation. Many private companies are doing their part as well. For example, Bank of America is building a new highrise office tower in Manhattan--a building that will be entirely green. It is time for the Federal Government to do its part. We need a solution to our energy problems: one that protects the American pocketbook, improves our CAFE standards, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and promotes green building. This energy bill will be an important step forward toward achieving these goals.st amendment no. 1792

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from New Jersey. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia. It is not often I disagree with the Senator from Virginia. I think this is the wrong course. To allow exploration and potential drilling off the coast of Virginia? We are from a State with a coastline that we cherish and must protect with all of our energy. Imagine the devastation an oil or a natural gas spill off the coast of Virginia would cause. New Jersey is only 75 miles from the proposed drilling sites off the coast of Virginia. An oil spill can travel hundreds of miles. For instance, when the Exxon Valdez dumped 11 million gallons of oil in Alaska, the oil traveled 470 miles. I was there within 3 days. It had already traveled hundreds of miles in Alaska. An oil spill from any offshore site off Virginia's coast could easily devastate the shoreline of our State and States up and down the Eastern Seaboard. It could poison the Atlantic and marine life that has made the ocean their home. It would damage our economy enormously. Our coastline accounts for approximately $50 billion a year in tourism every year and supports almost 500,000 jobs. The Warner amendment calls for offshore exploration and drilling for natural gas. According to the Department of Interior, natural gas is seldom found as a solitary product. Oil is almost always found in those locations. So not only can natural gas have environmental problems, but drilling for natural gas can easily result in puncturing oil deposits and causing major spills. According to the Department of Interior, approximately 3 million gallons of oil were spilled as a result of offshore drilling between 1980 and 1999. Each of these spills averaged more than 40,000 gallons. The Warner amendment will increase the likelihood of a spill ravaging our beaches. We won't allow New Jersey's coastline and our marine life to be placed at such a risk. It is not just me who is urging my colleagues to vote against this. The Governors from New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, and Maine have written letters to Congress urging this body to act responsibly and not allow drilling off our coasts. The energy we might be able to get there pales in comparison to the damage we could do to our coastlines in a very short time. Reluctantly, I say to my friend from Virginia, I oppose the amendment. I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Maritime Hazardous Cargo Security Act of 2007 along with my colleagues Senators Inouye, Stevens, and Smith. As the bipartisan leaders of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and its Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Safety, Security, and Infrastructure, we have been working together over the course of this session to evaluate the risks posed by the transportation of especially hazardous cargo in the maritime sector. This bill is the result of exhaustive research and consultation with affected industries and the Department of Homeland Security. Ships bringing liquefied natural gas, LNG, from foreign ports as well as the facilities along America's shores that handle LNG must be better secured against terrorism. With so much focus on hazardous cargo that is transported on our roads and railways, we must not neglect the much larger shipments of hazardous cargoes that are carried by vessel. Energy supply challenges in our country have led to the proposals for approximately 70 new shoreside facilities in the United States to receive liquefied natural gas via oceangoing tank vessel. Many of the safety and security risks of the transportation of this commodity are known and have been detailed by the Government Accountability Office. Furthermore, other chemicals and petrochemicals can present even greater security risks. The shipping system for these commodities is international in scope, so our bill would require the administration to work with our international trading partners to develop standards of care to adequately protect those ships, facilities, employees and nearby communities and residents from attacks involving these and other hazardous cargoes. Our proposal would require significant steps to protect the safety and security of our regional and national economies, and the public health, from the potential hazards of high risk cargo transported by ship. Specifically the Maritime Hazardous Cargo Act of 2007 would: Direct the Administration to work with international partners to develop standards and procedures for the safe and secure handling of especially hazardous cargoes, EHC, for all vessels and port facilities; require successful completion of U.S. Coast Guard Incident Command System, ICS, training for all personnel responsible for the safety and security of a vessel in port; require the Department of Homeland Security to develop regional response and recovery plans for the resumption of commerce after disruption by a security incident; authorize the U.S. Coast Guard to develop cost share plans for security costs associated with high- risk U.S. facilities; authorize assistance to foreign ports that handle and transport EHC's for the purpose of complying with or exceeding current International Ship and Port Facility Code, ISPFC, standards; authorize voluntary third party validation of international port facilities to certify they meet or exceed international safety standards; and require the U.S. Coast Guard to develop a resource allocation plan to show how its proposed budget will be used for EHC security operations and to report to Congress biannually. In summary, the Maritime Hazardous Cargo Act of 2007 will require strengthening of Federal protections against terrorist attacks on facilities and vessels that transport, handle, and store especially hazardous cargoes, EHC's. The transportation of EHC's by ship can pose a significant risk to the public safety and the economic security of the Nation, particularly the transportation of chemicals and petrochemicals such as anhydrous ammonia, ammonium nitrate, chlorine, liquefied natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas. Currently, no international standards exist for the safe and secure handling of these chemicals/petrochemicals by ship and limited U.S. Coast Guard resources for EHC security poses a dangerous risk to our communities. Further, I intend to work with my cosponsors and other colleagues to ensure there are sufficient resources in the Federal budget to carry out the provisions of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Maritime Hazardous Cargo Security Act of 2007 along with my colleagues Senators Inouye, Stevens, and Smith. As the bipartisan leaders of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and its Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Safety, Security, and Infrastructure, we have been working together over the course of this session to evaluate the risks posed by the transportation of especially hazardous cargo in the maritime sector. This bill is the result of exhaustive research and consultation with affected industries and the Department of Homeland Security. Ships bringing liquefied natural gas, LNG, from foreign ports as well as the facilities along America's shores that handle LNG must be better secured against terrorism. With so much focus on hazardous cargo that is transported on our roads and railways, we must not neglect the much larger shipments of hazardous cargoes that are carried by vessel. Energy supply challenges in our country have led to the proposals for approximately 70 new shoreside facilities in the United States to receive liquefied natural gas via oceangoing tank vessel. Many of the safety and security risks of the transportation of this commodity are known and have been detailed by the Government Accountability Office. Furthermore, other chemicals and petrochemicals can present even greater security risks. The shipping system for these commodities is international in scope, so our bill would require the administration to work with our international trading partners to develop standards of care to adequately protect those ships, facilities, employees and nearby communities and residents from attacks involving these and other hazardous cargoes. Our proposal would require significant steps to protect the safety and security of our regional and national economies, and the public health, from the potential hazards of high risk cargo transported by ship. Specifically the Maritime Hazardous Cargo Act of 2007 would: Direct the Administration to work with international partners to develop standards and procedures for the safe and secure handling of especially hazardous cargoes, EHC, for all vessels and port facilities; require successful completion of U.S. Coast Guard Incident Command System, ICS, training for all personnel responsible for the safety and security of a vessel in port; require the Department of Homeland Security to develop regional response and recovery plans for the resumption of commerce after disruption by a security incident; authorize the U.S. Coast Guard to develop cost share plans for security costs associated with high- risk U.S. facilities; authorize assistance to foreign ports that handle and transport EHC's for the purpose of complying with or exceeding current International Ship and Port Facility Code, ISPFC, standards; authorize voluntary third party validation of international port facilities to certify they meet or exceed international safety standards; and require the U.S. Coast Guard to develop a resource allocation plan to show how its proposed budget will be used for EHC security operations and to report to Congress biannually. In summary, the Maritime Hazardous Cargo Act of 2007 will require strengthening of Federal protections against terrorist attacks on facilities and vessels that transport, handle, and store especially hazardous cargoes, EHC's. The transportation of EHC's by ship can pose a significant risk to the public safety and the economic security of the Nation, particularly the transportation of chemicals and petrochemicals such as anhydrous ammonia, ammonium nitrate, chlorine, liquefied natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas. Currently, no international standards exist for the safe and secure handling of these chemicals/petrochemicals by ship and limited U.S. Coast Guard resources for EHC security poses a dangerous risk to our communities. Further, I intend to work with my cosponsors and other colleagues to ensure there are sufficient resources in the Federal budget to carry out the provisions of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would establish a comprehensive Federal research plan and program to address ocean acidification, which poses a growing threat to the health of our oceans. Our oceans help reduce global warming by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. To date, about one-third of all human-generated carbon emissions have dissolved into the ocean. However, the increase in carbon dioxide lowers ocean pH, and causes the oceans to become more acidic. This increase in acidity is corrosive to marine shells and organisms that form the base of the food chain for many fish and marine mammals. These changes in ocean chemistry also threaten coral reef ecosystems, habitats so rich in biodiversity they are called he rain forests of the sea. Even a mild increase in ocean acidity could make these organisms more vulnerable to disease, pollution and other environmental stresses. If the acidic conditions increase significantly, marine shells could actually begin to dissolve. Ocean acidification demands our immediate attention. Current projections of carbon dioxide emissions suggest that the acidity of our oceans is likely to accelerate significantly in the coming years. NOAA scientists have said that ocean acidity has increased 30 percent since the industrial revolution and they estimate by the end of this century the acidity of the oceans may increase 150 percent. They also project that current trends could result in a decrease in ocean pH to the lowest levels in 20 million years. Ocean acidification threatens our marine ecosystems and could result in significant social and economic costs. The rich biodiversity of marine organisms is an important contribution to the national economy providing food, tourism, and aesthetic benefits, but they are vulnerable to human activity. Ocean acidification threatens fish and all calcifying organisms including corals, scallops, clams, crabs, lobsters, and plankton. It is important to note the potential economic impacts of ocean acidification. Coastal and marine commercial fishing generates upwards of $30 billion per year and employs nearly 70,000 people. Many of these fisheries also rely upon healthy coral habitats. Increased ocean acidification reduces the ability of corals and shellfish to produce their skeletons. Globally, coral reefs are home to more than 4,000 kinds of fish, and generate $30 billion per year in fishing, tourism, and protection to coasts from storms. Scientists have estimated that, due to excess carbon dioxide in the oceans, corals may be unable to form their skeletons by mid-century, and could begin to dissolve by the end of this century. Destroying these ecosystems will have staggering environmental, social and economic consequences. In addition, ocean acidification directly threatens numerous commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish species from coast to coast. Carbon dioxide-rich waters have been shown to decrease the body weight of Pacific salmon and increase the mortality rate of Alaskan blue king crab. Over 50 percent of our commercial catch in the United States is shellfish. In New Jersey, sea scallops and clams are some of the State's most valuable fisheries, valued at $121 million. These and other important shellfish species are threatened by growing acidification. Research on the processes and consequences of ocean acidification is still in its infancy. The urgency of developing interagency collaboration to address this far-reaching environmental problem is widely recognized in the scientific community. In January, the Administration Ocean Research Priorities Plan, ORPP, identified ocean acidification as a research priority. Consistent with the ORPP, my legislation will establish a comprehensive research and monitoring program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. This is critical for ocean management in the long-term because many questions on the effect of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide on ocean chemistry and marine life remain unanswered. My legislation also establishes an interagency committee to develop a comprehensive ocean acidification research and monitoring plan designed to improve the understanding of the environmental and economic impacts of increased ocean acidification. The plan will identify priority research areas and strengthen relevant programs within our federal agencies. The plan will also address commercially and recreationally important species, as well as vulnerable ecosystems including coral reefs and coastal and polar oceans threatened by acidification. The rise of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has been measured continuously since 1958. Known as the ``Keeling Curve'', these measurements are a cornerstone of our understanding of man-made increases in carbon dioxide causing global warming and ocean acidification. It is vital that we establish a program for long-term global measurements of ocean pH to understand the processes and consequences of ocean acidification. A key component in our bill directs federal agencies to establish a long-term monitoring program of pH levels in the ocean utilizing existing global ocean observing assets. Congress has been hearing from our Nation experts on ocean acidification since 2004. Now is the time for national investment in a coordinated program of research and monitoring to improve understanding of ocean acidification, and strengthen the ability of marine resource managers to assess and prepare for the harmful impacts of ocean acidification on our marine resources. I would like to thank Senator Cantwell for her cosponsorship and support on this important issue. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure passage of this legislation so that we can fill this vital research need and protect our valuable marine resources. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would establish a comprehensive Federal research plan and program to address ocean acidification, which poses a growing threat to the health of our oceans. Our oceans help reduce global warming by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. To date, about one-third of all human-generated carbon emissions have dissolved into the ocean. However, the increase in carbon dioxide lowers ocean pH, and causes the oceans to become more acidic. This increase in acidity is corrosive to marine shells and organisms that form the base of the food chain for many fish and marine mammals. These changes in ocean chemistry also threaten coral reef ecosystems, habitats so rich in biodiversity they are called he rain forests of the sea. Even a mild increase in ocean acidity could make these organisms more vulnerable to disease, pollution and other environmental stresses. If the acidic conditions increase significantly, marine shells could actually begin to dissolve. Ocean acidification demands our immediate attention. Current projections of carbon dioxide emissions suggest that the acidity of our oceans is likely to accelerate significantly in the coming years. NOAA scientists have said that ocean acidity has increased 30 percent since the industrial revolution and they estimate by the end of this century the acidity of the oceans may increase 150 percent. They also project that current trends could result in a decrease in ocean pH to the lowest levels in 20 million years. Ocean acidification threatens our marine ecosystems and could result in significant social and economic costs. The rich biodiversity of marine organisms is an important contribution to the national economy providing food, tourism, and aesthetic benefits, but they are vulnerable to human activity. Ocean acidification threatens fish and all calcifying organisms including corals, scallops, clams, crabs, lobsters, and plankton. It is important to note the potential economic impacts of ocean acidification. Coastal and marine commercial fishing generates upwards of $30 billion per year and employs nearly 70,000 people. Many of these fisheries also rely upon healthy coral habitats. Increased ocean acidification reduces the ability of corals and shellfish to produce their skeletons. Globally, coral reefs are home to more than 4,000 kinds of fish, and generate $30 billion per year in fishing, tourism, and protection to coasts from storms. Scientists have estimated that, due to excess carbon dioxide in the oceans, corals may be unable to form their skeletons by mid-century, and could begin to dissolve by the end of this century. Destroying these ecosystems will have staggering environmental, social and economic consequences. In addition, ocean acidification directly threatens numerous commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish species from coast to coast. Carbon dioxide-rich waters have been shown to decrease the body weight of Pacific salmon and increase the mortality rate of Alaskan blue king crab. Over 50 percent of our commercial catch in the United States is shellfish. In New Jersey, sea scallops and clams are some of the State's most valuable fisheries, valued at $121 million. These and other important shellfish species are threatened by growing acidification. Research on the processes and consequences of ocean acidification is still in its infancy. The urgency of developing interagency collaboration to address this far-reaching environmental problem is widely recognized in the scientific community. In January, the Administration Ocean Research Priorities Plan, ORPP, identified ocean acidification as a research priority. Consistent with the ORPP, my legislation will establish a comprehensive research and monitoring program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. This is critical for ocean management in the long-term because many questions on the effect of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide on ocean chemistry and marine life remain unanswered. My legislation also establishes an interagency committee to develop a comprehensive ocean acidification research and monitoring plan designed to improve the understanding of the environmental and economic impacts of increased ocean acidification. The plan will identify priority research areas and strengthen relevant programs within our federal agencies. The plan will also address commercially and recreationally important species, as well as vulnerable ecosystems including coral reefs and coastal and polar oceans threatened by acidification. The rise of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has been measured continuously since 1958. Known as the ``Keeling Curve'', these measurements are a cornerstone of our understanding of man-made increases in carbon dioxide causing global warming and ocean acidification. It is vital that we establish a program for long-term global measurements of ocean pH to understand the processes and consequences of ocean acidification. A key component in our bill directs federal agencies to establish a long-term monitoring program of pH levels in the ocean utilizing existing global ocean observing assets. Congress has been hearing from our Nation experts on ocean acidification since 2004. Now is the time for national investment in a coordinated program of research and monitoring to improve understanding of ocean acidification, and strengthen the ability of marine resource managers to assess and prepare for the harmful impacts of ocean acidification on our marine resources. I would like to thank Senator Cantwell for her cosponsorship and support on this important issue. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure passage of this legislation so that we can fill this vital research need and protect our valuable marine resources. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 minutes to speak in morning business.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today is going to be a day of great importance to America. We are going to be voting on the supplemental bill to fund the surge and the number of soldiers on duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. But last night we learned the body of one of the missing soldiers in Iraq was found. Despite our prayers, he was dead. We were informed that the body of Joseph Anzack, Jr., was pulled from the Euphrates River south of Baghdad. On May 12, he and two of his colleagues went missing after they were ambushed by insurgents. How did the capture of three Americans take place? Are we short of troops to back them up or is it so dangerous we just can't overcome the odds we face? All of America is hoping and praying, as we keep these other two soldiers in our hearts and our minds, that they will be found alive by the troops searching for them. One of the soldiers searching for their two colleagues said something to the Associated Press. I quote him here. It just angers me that it's just another friend that I've got to lose and deal with, because I've already lost 13 friends since I've been here and I don't know if I can take it anymore. Much of America feels the same way. Outside of my office in Washington we have a tribute called ``The Faces of the Fallen.'' Visitors from across the country have stopped by this memorial-- pictures of those who perished. I encourage my colleagues to come and see these photographs displayed on placards on the third floor of the Hart Building. Since the beginning of May, and we are now at the 24th of May, the Pentagon has announced the deaths of 75 of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan coming from thirty-one different states. I want them to be remembered. Today, I am going to read their names into the Record. As we listen to the names, the real cost of this war is being felt in many homes across this country. These are the names: LCpl Benjamin D. Desilets, of Elmwood, IL; CPL Julian M. Woodall, of Tallahassee, FL; CPL Ryan D. Collins, of Vernon, TX; SGT Jason A. Schumann, of Hawley, MN; SSG Christopher Moore, of Alpaugh, CA; SGT Jean P. Medlin, of Pelham, AL; SPC David W. Behrle, of Tipton, IA; SPC Joseph A. Gilmore, of Webster, FL; PFC Travis F. Haslip, of Ooltewah, TN; PFC Alexander R. Varela, of Fernley, NV; SFC Jesse B. Albrecht, of Hager City, WI; SPC Coty J. Phelps, of Kingman, AZ; PFC Victor M. Fontanilla, of Stockton, CA; SGT Ryan J. Baum, of Aurora, CO; SGT Justin D. Wisniewski, of Standish, MI; SGT Anselmo Martinez III, of Robstown, TX; SPC Casey W. Nash, of Baltimore, MD; SPC Joshua G. Romero, of Crowley, TX; SFC Scott J. Brown, of Windsor, CO; SPC Marquis J. McCants, of San Antonio, TX; PFC Jonathan V. Hamm, of Baltimore, MD; SGT Steven M. Packer, of Clovis, CA; PFC Aaron D. Gautier, of Hampton, VA; SSG Joshua R. Whitaker, of Long Beach, CA; SGT Allen J. Dunckley, of Yardley, PA; SGT Christopher N. Gonzalez, of Winslow, AZ; SGT Thomas G. Wright, of Holly, MI; LCpl Jeffrey D. Walker, of Macon, GA; PFC Zachary R. Gullett, of Hillsboro, OH; MAJ Larry J. Bauguess Jr., of Moravian Falls, NC; PFC Nicholas S. Hartge, of Rome City, IN; SFC James D. Connell Jr., of Lake City, TN; PFC Daniel W. Courneya, of Nashville, MI; CPL Christopher E. Murphy, of Lynchburg, VA; SSG John T. Self, of Pontotoc, MS; SPC Rhys W. Klasno, of Riverside, CA; MAJ Douglas A. Zembiec, of Albuquerque, NM; PVT Anthony J. Sausto, of Lake Havasu City, AZ; 1LT Andrew J. Bacevich, of Walpole, MA; PFC William A. Farrar Jr., of Redlands, CA; SPC Michael K. Frank, of Great Falls, MT; PFC Roy L. Jones III, of Houston, TX; SGT Jason W. Vaughn, of Iuka, MS; SGT Blake C. Stephens, of Pocatello, ID; SPC Kyle A. Little, of West Boylston, MA; SGM Bradly D. Conner, of Coeur d'Alene, ID; LCpl Walter K. O'Haire, of Lynn, MA; SGT Timothy P. Padgett, of Defuniak Springs, FL; SPC Dan H. Nguyen, of Sugar Land, TX; SSG Vincenzo Romeo, of Lodi, NJ--my home State; SGT Jason R. Harkins, of Clarkesville, GA; SGT Joel W. Lewis, of Sandia Park, NM; CPL Matthew L. Alexander, of Gretna, NE; CPL Anthony M. Bradshaw, of San Antonio, TX; CPL Michael A. Pursel, of Clinton, UT; SSG Virgil C. Martinez, of West Valley, UT; SGT Sameer A. M. Rateb, of Absecon, NJ--my home State; COL James W. Harrison Jr., of Missouri; MSG Wilberto Sabalu Jr., of Chicago, IL; SSG Christopher N. Hamlin, of London, KY; PFC Larry I. Guyton, of Brenham, TX; SSG Christopher S. Kiernan, of Virginia Beach, VA; MSG Kenneth N. Mack, of Fort Worth, TX; CPL Charles O. Palmer II, of Manteca, CA; PFC Jerome J. Potter, of Tacoma, WA; SSG Coby G. Schwab, of Puyallup, WA; SPC Kelly B. Grothe, of Spokane, WA; SPC Andrew R. Weiss, of Lafayette, IN; SPC Matthew T. Bolar, of Montgomery, AL; LCpl Johnathan E. Kirk, of Belhaven, NC; PFC Joseph G. Harris, of Sugar Land, TX; 1LT Colby J. Umbrell, of Doylestown, PA; 1LT Ryan P. Jones, of Massachusetts; SPC Astor A. Sunsin-Pineda, of Long Beach, CA; PFC Katie M. Soenksen, of Davenport, IA. Mr. President, as you heard, this list includes two brave men from New Jersey--I visited their families--SSG Vincent Vincenzo Romeo and SGT Sameer Rateb. Staff Sergeant Romeo was from Lodi, NJ, and Sergeant Rateb was from Absecon, NJ. It also includes SGT Allen J. Dunckley. His funeral is taking place today at 10:30, 5 minutes from now. His family is from Glassboro, NJ. PVT Anthony J. Sausto lived in Hamilton Township, NJ. We cannot forget these brave men and women. The Nation cannot afford to forget their sacrifice. We have to remember that these brave souls left behind parents and children, siblings, friends. Their sorrow will last forever. We want them to know the country thinks about them, and we make a pledge to preserve their memory with the dignity that those who served and paid this price deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would increase protections for the Nation's beaches and the public. This bill, the Beach Protection Act, will amend the sections of the Clean Water Act that were enacted in the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health, BEACH, Act, which I wrote in 1990, and which was enacted and signed by President Clinton in 2000. The BEACH Act required states to adopt the Environmental Protection Agency's 1986 national bacteria standard for beach water quality and provided incentive grants for States to set up beach monitoring and public notification programs. At the time Congress passed the BEACH Act, only 7 States had adopted water quality standards for bacteria at least as stringent as those recommended by EPA in 1986. Only 9 States had programs in place to monitor all or most of their beaches for pathogens, and to close the beaches or issue advisories when coastal waters are not safe. Only 5 States compiled and publicized records of beach closings and advisories. New Jersey was one of the leaders in all three of these categories. Now, thanks to the BEACH Act, every coastal State except Alaska has a monitoring program and a program for public notification of contamination of beach waters. In addition, every State has adopted standards at least as stringent as those set by EPA. The Beach Protection Act would build upon the progress we have made since passage of the BEACH Act, to improve monitoring and notification requirements, and improve the protection of our beaches. The Beach Protection Act will reauthorize the Federal grants created under the BEACH Act, and make several improvements to the program, based upon the lessons learned over the last 7 years. These amendments will increase protections and help reduce the water pollution that threatens the environment and public health. First, the Beach Protection Act will increase the funds available to States, and expand the uses of those funds to include tracking the sources of pollution that cause beach closures, and supporting pollution prevention efforts. It will also require EPA to develop methods for rapid testing of beach water, so that results are available in 2 hours, instead of 2 days. Secondly, this legislation will strengthen the requirements for public notification of health risks posed by beach water contamination, and ensure that all State and local agencies that play a role in protecting the environment and public health are notified of violations of water quality standards. Finally, the Beach Protection Act will improve accountability for states that fail to comply with the requirements of the Act. These measures will improve the public's awareness of health risks posed by contamination of coastal waters, and create additional tools for addressing the sources of pollution that cause beach closures, including leaking or overflowing sewer systems and stormwater runoff. Clean water is an economic and public health necessity for New Jersey and other coastal states. I have devoted my career to keeping New Jersey's waters clean and safe for swimming and fishing. The original BEACH Act I authored was an important step toward ensuring cleaner, safer beaches. The Beach Protection Act will further strengthen protections for the public and our beaches. I am pleased that Senator Menendez is joining me as an original cosponsor of this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation forward toward passage.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would increase protections for the Nation's beaches and the public. This bill, the Beach Protection Act, will amend the sections of the Clean Water Act that were enacted in the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health, BEACH, Act, which I wrote in 1990, and which was enacted and signed by President Clinton in 2000. The BEACH Act required states to adopt the Environmental Protection Agency's 1986 national bacteria standard for beach water quality and provided incentive grants for States to set up beach monitoring and public notification programs. At the time Congress passed the BEACH Act, only 7 States had adopted water quality standards for bacteria at least as stringent as those recommended by EPA in 1986. Only 9 States had programs in place to monitor all or most of their beaches for pathogens, and to close the beaches or issue advisories when coastal waters are not safe. Only 5 States compiled and publicized records of beach closings and advisories. New Jersey was one of the leaders in all three of these categories. Now, thanks to the BEACH Act, every coastal State except Alaska has a monitoring program and a program for public notification of contamination of beach waters. In addition, every State has adopted standards at least as stringent as those set by EPA. The Beach Protection Act would build upon the progress we have made since passage of the BEACH Act, to improve monitoring and notification requirements, and improve the protection of our beaches. The Beach Protection Act will reauthorize the Federal grants created under the BEACH Act, and make several improvements to the program, based upon the lessons learned over the last 7 years. These amendments will increase protections and help reduce the water pollution that threatens the environment and public health. First, the Beach Protection Act will increase the funds available to States, and expand the uses of those funds to include tracking the sources of pollution that cause beach closures, and supporting pollution prevention efforts. It will also require EPA to develop methods for rapid testing of beach water, so that results are available in 2 hours, instead of 2 days. Secondly, this legislation will strengthen the requirements for public notification of health risks posed by beach water contamination, and ensure that all State and local agencies that play a role in protecting the environment and public health are notified of violations of water quality standards. Finally, the Beach Protection Act will improve accountability for states that fail to comply with the requirements of the Act. These measures will improve the public's awareness of health risks posed by contamination of coastal waters, and create additional tools for addressing the sources of pollution that cause beach closures, including leaking or overflowing sewer systems and stormwater runoff. Clean water is an economic and public health necessity for New Jersey and other coastal states. I have devoted my career to keeping New Jersey's waters clean and safe for swimming and fishing. The original BEACH Act I authored was an important step toward ensuring cleaner, safer beaches. The Beach Protection Act will further strengthen protections for the public and our beaches. I am pleased that Senator Menendez is joining me as an original cosponsor of this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation forward toward passage.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Federal Government Greenhouse Gas Registry Act. This bill will create an inventory of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Federal Government. This includes the Government's buildings, automotive fleets and other sources of emissions. Understanding the ``footprint'' of the Federal Government's emission is essential to reducing those emissions. The Federal Government is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. In particular, the largest owner or renter of buildings and owns the single largest fleet of cars in the United States. The buildings and the transportation sectors account for nearly two-thirds of all of the greenhouse gases in the country. The Federal Government must lead by example by reducing its own emissions. Understanding the extent of an entity's emissions, through the development of a registry, is important to ultimately reducing emissions. The private sector already understands this. It has found that tracking and monitoring corporate emissions creates an opportunity to easily reduce emissions by seeing where energy is inefficiently used. According to a recent report by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, ``the first step in developing a climate strategy is to analyze a company's GHG emissions profile . . .'' My bill uses the GHG protocol, a rigorous standard developed by experts and used by companies, States and trading regimes around the world, including Johnson & Johnson, the California Climate Action Registry and the EU's emission trading schemes. Utilizing such a well known and frequently used standard is important because it allows for comparison and benchmarking with other large emitters. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, has also recognized the importance of measuring greenhouse gas emissions. According to a GAO report from April 2007--``Energy Audits Are Key to Strategy for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions''--conducting emissions assessments would ``. . . include information on cost-effectiveness and potential for reducing emissions.'' In closing, the Federal Government has an obligation to lead by example and this bill is a critical first step in reducing its emissions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Federal Government Greenhouse Gas Registry Act. This bill will create an inventory of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Federal Government. This includes the Government's buildings, automotive fleets and other sources of emissions. Understanding the ``footprint'' of the Federal Government's emission is essential to reducing those emissions. The Federal Government is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. In particular, the largest owner or renter of buildings and owns the single largest fleet of cars in the United States. The buildings and the transportation sectors account for nearly two-thirds of all of the greenhouse gases in the country. The Federal Government must lead by example by reducing its own emissions. Understanding the extent of an entity's emissions, through the development of a registry, is important to ultimately reducing emissions. The private sector already understands this. It has found that tracking and monitoring corporate emissions creates an opportunity to easily reduce emissions by seeing where energy is inefficiently used. According to a recent report by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, ``the first step in developing a climate strategy is to analyze a company's GHG emissions profile . . .'' My bill uses the GHG protocol, a rigorous standard developed by experts and used by companies, States and trading regimes around the world, including Johnson & Johnson, the California Climate Action Registry and the EU's emission trading schemes. Utilizing such a well known and frequently used standard is important because it allows for comparison and benchmarking with other large emitters. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, has also recognized the importance of measuring greenhouse gas emissions. According to a GAO report from April 2007--``Energy Audits Are Key to Strategy for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions''--conducting emissions assessments would ``. . . include information on cost-effectiveness and potential for reducing emissions.'' In closing, the Federal Government has an obligation to lead by example and this bill is a critical first step in reducing its emissions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, once we were able to see beyond the death, destruction, and suffering that Hurricane Katrina wrought, we saw that America is unprepared for a megacatastrophe. We learned that lesson at the expense of those in the gulf states. Nevertheless, our vulnerability is not limited to Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, or to our Southern Atlantic States. Fifty-seven percent of Americans live in areas prone to earthquakes, hurricanes, or other massive disasters. We know about the quakes that have rocked California, Oregon, and Alaska. But the largest earthquake to strike the continental U.S. was centered in New Madrid, MO, in 1811. It rattled a swath of land that spanned from Mississippi to Michigan, from Pennsylvania to Nebraska. Twenty States, including Hawaii, and States that share a shoreline with the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, face the threat of hurricanes or severe storms every year. New Jersey experienced the second most severe storm in its history just last month. These downpours forced nearly 5,000 New Jerseyans to evacuate their homes and led to the deaths of at least three. Increasing numbers of people make those areas of vulnerability their homes every day. Eight out of the eleven most costly U.S. natural catastrophes have occurred since 2001. The failures of Katrina--from neglected levies to negligent leadership--must be acknowledged and addressed now, before the next catastrophe strikes. We have a moral obligation to learn from that experience. America needs an integrated program that unifies State and Federal policies to prepare and protect American families from the devastation of natural catastrophes. There are steps we can and must take--and we must take them today. We must prevent unnecessary loss of life and property by encouraging State and local governments to enact sensible building codes and land use policies that recognize the exposure to natural catastrophes. We must support first responders with the equipment, training, and personnel needed to save lives and reduce property damage. We must educate consumers and provide them the tools they need to prepare for catastrophes and protect their families and homes from harm. We must establish a rigorous process of continuous improvement by learning from past mistakes and assessing recovery efforts after every disaster to identify ways to continually improve our ability to recover from catastrophes. My Senate colleagues, the warnings before Hurricane Katrina were shamefully ignored and unheeded, the response was slow and erratic, and this Nation paid an enormous price. We have been warned. We must learn from the lessons of Katrina and exhibit the leadership America needs to be prepared and protected from catastrophes to come.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have an interesting challenge in front of us today. All of us support drug availability at affordable prices. The challenge that brings us to the floor today is how to ensure that prescription drugs used by Americans are both affordable and safe. That is the goal for all of us, I believe, in the Senate. We trust the drugs we get at our local pharmacies, our neighborhood pharmacies, are safe because they go through a rigorous FDA approval process, and a series of tests and inspections are done before they reach our medicine chests. Those drugs improve, extend, and save lives. I am proud so many of these drugs originate in my home State. In fact, more than half the medicines approved by the FDA in 2001 were developed by 70,000 hard-working people employed in the pharmaceutical companies of New Jersey. These companies have received more than 11,000 patents for their products since 1985 for their innovative work. Many of these products are life-extending and limit often painful and debilitating conditions. When we look at the prospects these companies are offering, we want to encourage the research. I heard this morning about an inoculation that could be sufficient, given one time to women, that could prevent osteoporosis. What a wonderful thing. Recently, we have had a product come to the market called Gardasil. It says that young women who receive an injection of Gardasil can be protected against cervical cancer for their lives. What a wonderful thing that is. Lipitor has been known for some time to reduce plaque gathering in the valves and the veins that lead to the heart. We want to encourage that kind of development, and our goal is to make sure these workers continue developing lifesaving medications and at the same time lower costs and increase access to these drugs. I support the efforts to lower prescription drug prices, and I understand the appeal of reimportation, as long as we are absolutely assured of the safety and efficacy of these products. So if we are going to trust drugs imported from other countries, we need to be sure they are as effective and completely safe. We cannot put our citizens in the position of buying medicine they think will lower their cholesterol or prevent heart disease only to find out years later the drug was a fake. According to the World Health Organization, up to 10 percent of all drugs sold across the globe are counterfeit. We heard debate about the countries that some of these drugs come from. If we want to give consumers the chance to buy drugs imported from other countries, we have to insist these drugs are authentic, reliable, and safe. That is why the Senate has, on three prior occasions, required the Department of Health and Human Services to certify that importation be without additional risk to the public health while it reduces costs. That is why I intend to support the Cochran second-degree amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same thing. Let's make sure what we are telling the public to buy is absolutely safe, harmless, and can improve life's qualities.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds more.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Cochran amendment would require the same certification this body has approved three times before--to guarantee prescription drugs and provide consumers peace of mind, knowing that the drugs they are taking are safe and effective no matter where they originated. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wish to recognize and congratulate the United Parcel Service on its 100th anniversary. In these 100 years, many of us have grown to see UPS's ubiquitous brown vans as symbols of reliability and to know and trust the remarkable people who drive them. As UPS has evolved to become the largest package delivery company in the world, it has become a cornerstone of commerce in America and a vital part of my State's economy. When James E. Casey founded UPS in 1907 with a $100 loan from a friend, surely it would have been beyond even his wildest dreams that the company would grow to deliver 15.6 million documents and packages every day, to employ 360,600 employees here in the United States, and to make deliveries to over 200 countries and territories throughout the world. By constantly innovating and improving service and through the dedication of its employees, UPS has reached the pinnacle of its industry and has set the standard by which its competitors must follow. I am proud to say that since opening their first facility in Newark, NJ, in 1928, UPS has maintained a significant presence in my home State of New Jersey. It employs more than 18,000 people statewide, making it one of the 10 largest employers in our State. I recently had the privilege and opportunity to visit a UPS hub in Edison to help commemorate UPS's 100th anniversary. At the Edison facility, 3,000 dedicated employees process and sort packages originating from and destined for points all over our State. Individuals and businesses across New Jersey rely on their efforts every day, and the intricate and sophisticated processes used by these employees ensure that important packages and documents are delivered on time. I encourage my colleagues to join me in congratulating UPS on 100 years in business. I personally extend my best wishes to the company and its employees in New Jersey and across the world for many more years of success and prosperity.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I want to take some time, as we contemplate what is going to happen with the supplemental bill we just passed because, frankly, I am in a state of shock over the casual dismissal of the opinions of the American people, in huge majorities, who say: We have had enough of this war, and we want to make a change. They want us to start to position ourselves in a manner that would allow us to bring our people home. Not far from this Senate floor, in the middle of the National Mall, is a place of stone and water, of strength and reflection. It is a place that is important to me and, I think, important to the country as a whole. It is where we honor those who served and those who died in World War II. I proudly wore the uniform of my country during that war. I do not consider myself a hero, but I did my duty to the best of my ability. I and 16 million others went to war because our mission was clear: defeat the enemy who attacked us. And while the battles were fought across the ocean, the entire country united. They all sacrificed. That was the message: sacrifice, sacrifice at home, use less gas, turn off the lights, reduce energy consumption, black out the beachfront places or coastal areas so the enemy could not see the lights of the cities. Even with rising injuries and casualties in World War II, America kept its resolve because we believed in our leaders. How times have changed. There is one simple reason the American people have lost faith in this war effort: It has become clear our leaders are not providing us with the truth. And the chief purveyor of misstatements is Vice President Cheney. He chooses to say whatever he wants to, to advance his agenda. But the agenda has now, we know, resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans, thousands of Iraqis. It is time to say: Enough is enough. I want to review some of the outlandish statements the Vice President has made about this war. On the eve of the invasion, in March 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney assured the Nation that ``we will be greeted as liberators.'' I ask the question: How dare he make a statement such as that-- without knowledge, without any idea of what the consequences of that action might be. We will be greeted as liberators? He went on to say the fight would be ``weeks rather than months.'' In June of 2005, Vice President Cheney assured us the insurgency in Iraq is ``in the last throes.'' That was almost 2 years ago. Ask our people in uniform, ask our people in combat, ask those who are facing another deployment after having been there once or even twice--ask them what they think about that statement, about the accuracy of those remarks. Earlier this year, even after the Pentagon admitted there was no evidence at all of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, the Vice President said there was a connection. If you say it, maybe you can convince people, even if it is not the truth. And now, this week, we have our Vice President speaking out against this bill we just passed, again making outlandish claims. You have to ask yourself a question: Who is still listening to those comments and giving them any credibility? Unfortunately, there are people, despite his outrageous and unsubstantiated claims--claims such as the ``insurgency is in its last throes''--who tend to believe him. He is, after all, the Vice President of the United States. It is a prestigious job. There is an automatic assumption that credibility goes to the occupant of that position. We may never know the real motivation behind this administration's drive to Iraq, but we do know the following: They presented false intelligence to the American people and our allies. We have seen some of those responsible, credible people, who believed in the case that was being made by the intelligence reports--look at one of the great figures in American contemporary history, Colin Powell--a general, Chief of Staff. I remember his speech at the United Nations providing evidence of materials that confirmed there were weapons of mass destruction there. And now this man, who has a lifetime built on honesty and credibility, has said he regrets those statements. But we do not hear that pause, that reflection, coming from the President or the Vice President of the United States. The administration knowingly misled the country about Iraq's nuclear ambitions in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address. In a recent CBS News poll, 66 percent of the American people disapproved of the way President Bush is handling this situation with Iraq. That disapproval has continued to build. If you look at some of the polling data we have seen over the last couple years, less and less of the people in the country believe we are doing a good job with the situation in Iraq, as portrayed by the President. On Monday, President Bush said: There's been some progress. That statement shows the President is living in an alternate reality. On that same day--Monday--10 American troops were killed, 9 of them in a single attack. Since the beginning of this war, more than 3,300 of our people in uniform have died. One of those people was a fellow from Toms River, NJ, Marine Cpl Thomas Saba. He served with the Marines' Flying Tigers. He volunteered to extend his tour of duty after his squadron was deployed to Iraq. He died with his comrades in February when their helicopter was shot down by insurgents. Corporal Saba is one of 77 people from my home State of New Jersey to see their last sunset in Iraq. Ten more have died in Afghanistan. Beyond these casualties, nearly 25,000 of our troops have left the combat theater with serious wounds. More than 800 of them have lost at least one limb. We have spent mountains of taxpayer money in Iraq. We have spent $400 billion, going now at the rate of $3 billion a week. What have we gotten for our investment? A disaster. That is the reality of Iraq, not the endless and empty picture of optimism the Vice President and others in the administration and the President continue to paint. ``Extend our victories.'' What victories are they talking about? I don't see any victories. We see more threats. Not only to our people--that is the most serious one--not only to our reputation, but to our leadership in the world as it disintegrates in front of us as this conflict continues. We need a new course, and we need it now. This supplemental provides that new course. We hope the President will reflect a little bit, instead of the braggadocio attitude and false stories about how Democrats want to surrender. That is the most offensive thing. Democrats want to surrender? Senator Inouye, a Medal of Honor winner here, and other people who fought in Vietnam and other places. We want to surrender America? It is an outrage. Outside my office, we have a memorial and it shows the ``Faces of the Fallen''--photographs. Some of them are blank, but they have a name and a location of the person--the faces of the fallen from Iraq and Afghanistan. Typically it carries each picture, and we have about 3,000 of them. It takes a while to get the pictures together. People walk by, they stop and pause and write notes in a journal we have there. It includes the name and age, the rank and the battalion or company they served in, the cause of death of each of the Nation's fallen servicemembers, inscribed with their photo on the memorial. Families, friends, and visitors search those photos on a daily basis looking for people from their State, from their area, people who many knew and loved and miss. One woman found a picture of her son up there and wrote an inscription in our journal. As they search these pictures, some write notes in a book of reflections. I want to share two of those reflections. A person named Prudence Hart from New Jersey wrote: We honor our soldiers for answering the call of their Nation. We must honor them and this Nation by never allowing another President to wage war as this one has. Another person, Jay Miller from Rhode Island, wrote: We are at a pivotal point in our country's history. Our leaders must take a stand and use their constitutional powers to end this madness. To Prudence Hart, Jay Miller, and every American, I say: We are with you. We do honor those who have bravely taken up their task, able and willing to do it. Some of those troops are the third deployment away from a spouse, children, community, job. They are the ones making the sacrifice, and they are the ones whom we want to honor. We want to honor them by remembering those who paid the ultimate price, but we want to honor them further by bringing them home and giving them appropriate post-service treatment. I wish we were treating our veterans in the same honorable manner in which they were recruited. We have failed in many instances. We failed, even as people criticize Democrats and those who disagree with them, even as they try to discredit us as wanting to surrender, when they didn't provide the right equipment, whether the humvees were sufficiently armored, or whether they had the proper flak jackets. I went to Iraq some years ago, and when I asked the people I met from New Jersey: What is it we could do to make their job better and protect them more, one of them said, Senator--and I was with four other colleagues--Senators, the flak jackets you are wearing, the body armor you are wearing is the latest and the best. We don't have it. People who were in the coalition have that, but we don't. What else? They said: Our humvees are not sufficiently armored to protect us. We know what has happened. So if we want to talk about honoring our troops, where was the administration while Halliburton was stealing from the country with food and shelter and had a fine of millions of dollars imposed by the auditors from the Defense Department? Shame on them. In the war I fought in, there wasn't anybody except a traitor who would do something that might help the enemy like having a sham corporation in the Cayman Islands, a branch in Dubai where they then did business with Iran-- Iran, which supplies weapons and encouragement to insurgents who want to kill our people there. It is shocking that we see that, and when we hear these false tales coming from the Vice President of the United States, when he talks about victory, and I am paraphrasing: victory within our grasp, within our reach. The American people don't believe it, and I tell my colleagues I don't believe it, and a lot of my colleagues don't believe it. We had a vote one day that was significant. It was 56 to 44, and it included seven of our colleagues from the Republican side, people who had the courage to stand up and say: Look, we are not ashamed to be Republicans, and we are not ashamed to be Democrats, but we think this policy is wrong. We had enough votes--not to get cloture, but to establish a significant majority. I know some of our colleagues over there who are loyal to the party and to the President who don't like a bit what he is asking of the American people now, and asking of us, labeling this bill as a porkbarrel thing. I can't get the word ``surrender'' out of my mind. I sit on the Appropriations Committee, and I was at a conference committee of the House and the Senate the other night, and the ranking Republican on the House side said the Democrats want to surrender just when General Petraeus is coming in--surrender. This bill is our stand, the American stand. It begins to set a timetable for us to come home-- not to run away from our responsibilities. Our responsibility has been more than met. But we are even willing to leave enough of a cadre there to say: OK, we will help the Iraqis learn to defend themselves. We will help the Iraqis to reconstruct their society. We will help even to do some counterterrorism and counterinsurgencies. It is time to come home. It is time to come home, and I hope the President of the United States will follow the demands of the American people and a major number of people who oppose where we are, a huge majority. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Stop Business With Terrorists Act of 2007. Senator Clinton is joining me as an original cosponsor of this important bill. This bill will shut down a source of revenue that flows to terrorists and rogue regimes that threaten our nation's security. President Bush has made the statement that money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations. He could not be more right. Amazingly, some of our corporations are providing revenue to terrorists by doing business with these rogue regimes. My bill is simple. It closes a loophole in the law that allows American companies to do business with our enemies. Our current sanctions laws prohibit United States companies from doing business directly with Iran, but the law contains a loophole. It enables an American company to create a foreign-based subsidiary that can do business with that prohibited country. As long as this loophole is in place, our sanctions laws have no teeth. My bill will close this loophole once and for all and will cut off a major source of revenue for terrorists. It will require foreign subsidiaries that are majority controlled by a U.S. parent company to follow U.S. sanctions laws. For those companies that would need to divest from such a situation, they would have 90 days to do so. This is a simple concept with significant impact. It is critical that we starve these rogue regimes and the terrorists they support at the source. Of the companies that are taking advantage of this loophole, the country that has benefited the most has been Iran. And as we know, Iran funds Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist organizations. We should not allow American-controlled companies to provide cash to Iran so that they can convert these funds into bullets and bombs to be used against us and our allies. It is inexcusable for American companies to engage in any business practice that provides revenues to terrorists, and we have to stop it. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to close the terror funding loophole. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Stop Business With Terrorists Act of 2007. Senator Clinton is joining me as an original cosponsor of this important bill. This bill will shut down a source of revenue that flows to terrorists and rogue regimes that threaten our nation's security. President Bush has made the statement that money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations. He could not be more right. Amazingly, some of our corporations are providing revenue to terrorists by doing business with these rogue regimes. My bill is simple. It closes a loophole in the law that allows American companies to do business with our enemies. Our current sanctions laws prohibit United States companies from doing business directly with Iran, but the law contains a loophole. It enables an American company to create a foreign-based subsidiary that can do business with that prohibited country. As long as this loophole is in place, our sanctions laws have no teeth. My bill will close this loophole once and for all and will cut off a major source of revenue for terrorists. It will require foreign subsidiaries that are majority controlled by a U.S. parent company to follow U.S. sanctions laws. For those companies that would need to divest from such a situation, they would have 90 days to do so. This is a simple concept with significant impact. It is critical that we starve these rogue regimes and the terrorists they support at the source. Of the companies that are taking advantage of this loophole, the country that has benefited the most has been Iran. And as we know, Iran funds Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist organizations. We should not allow American-controlled companies to provide cash to Iran so that they can convert these funds into bullets and bombs to be used against us and our allies. It is inexcusable for American companies to engage in any business practice that provides revenues to terrorists, and we have to stop it. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to close the terror funding loophole. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Gregg in our introduction of legislation that would help protect and preserve the valuable coastal and estuarine lands of our Nation. Development of the Nation's coastal and estuarine areas poses an increasing threat to water quality, wildlife habitat, flood protection, and recreational opportunities. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy emphasized that intact coastal lands are vital to ensuring the ecological and economic health of coastal communities. However, as these areas are fragmented and disappear, so do the benefits they provide. The Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act (CELP) would authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as the lead Federal agency supporting State, local or private acquisition of land or conservation easements in undeveloped coastal areas in order to ensure their protection from development. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative has identified enactment of the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act as a high priority for improving our coastal resource management. This legislation builds upon the existing Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) within NOAA. The Program allows States to compete for matching funds to acquire land or easements for the protection of sensitive coastal ecosystems. The Federal funds provided through this program help leverage additional State, local and private funding. The CELCP complements private, Federal and State conservation programs. This program is based on the highly successful Forest Legacy program which is a Federal-State partnership program that supports efforts to protect environmentally sensitive forest lands. Permanent protection of lands in the coastal zone is also necessary to maintain and enhance coastal and estuarine areas for the benefit of the Nation, including protecting water quality, keeping public beachfront accessible, conserving wildlife habitat, and sustaining sport and commercial fisheries. Coastal and estuarine areas are some of the most productive ecosystems on earth. They are home to countless plants, animals, birds, and fish. These are complex ecosystems that provide a foundation for marine life as well as protection of inland areas from storm damage. Over the last 150 years the national system of estuaries has decreased in size because of our growing coastal populations and short-sighted land-use planning. Today our coastal areas are home to over 150 million Americans, about 53 percent of the U.S. population, and over 180 million people visit the coasts each year. Due to the increasing pressures from development in low-lying areas, NOAA has estimated 80 percent of our Nations' coastal waters are impaired for human use and marine life. The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) established under the Coastal Zone Management Act is a network of 27 protected estuaries throughout the United States, including the Jacques Cousteau NERRS site in New Jersey. These are pristine areas that provide public education and conservation awareness, and serve as living laboratories for scientific research. The funds provided through the CELP program established by our legislation would promote the expansion of these estuarine areas and assist in keeping coastal ecosystems healthy and productive. Federal funds help make New Jersey conservation possible. New Jersey's treasured natural resources--from the Meadowlands to the marshlands of Barnegat Bay--have substantially benefited from Federal support. The existing CELCP has aided in securing protection for over a thousand acres in New Jersey including lands for Gunning Island, Tuckerton Creek, and the Harbor Herons project. This week there will be a formal dedication of a 115-acre property, acquired with the aid of CELCP, on Potter Creek in Berkeley Township for public use and recreation. Lands have been protected in the Manahawkin Marsh, for wildlife habitat, including migratory birds along the Atlantic Flyway. In Ocean County, the CELCP helped secure the acquisition of 800 acres on Tuckerton Creek in Little Egg Harbor which is vital to protecting Atlantic white cedar stands and improving the water quality of the Barnegat Bay. These projects have successfully protected our coasts while sustaining human activity. The coastal zone is essential to our country's prosperity and well- being. The coastal and estuarine lands are areas of national importance and they are vulnerable to human activities. From 2002 through 2006 twenty-five States have benefited from the CELCP. Now is the time for Congress to authorize this program to conserve lands that are vital to our Nation. The bill Senator Gregg and I are introducing today, the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act, will ensure an ongoing partnership between Federal, State, and local governments to support the economic and natural resource base of communities through the acquisition of coastal and estuarine lands. This legislation offers the opportunity for States to protect coastal and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values and are threatened by conversion to other uses. The organizations supporting this legislation include The Trust for Public Land, The American Littoral Society, NY/NJ Baykeeper, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Land Trust Alliance, Restore America's Estuaries, American Fly Fishing Trade Association, Society for the Protection of New Hampshire's Forests, National Estuarine Research Reserve Association, Association of National Estuary Programs, The Ocean Conservancy, Coastal States Organization, The Conservation Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and the New Jersey Audubon Society. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from these groups be printed in the Record. I would like to thank Senator Gregg for his long-time leadership on this issue. I would also like to thank Senator Mikulski for her many years of support for this legislation. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Gregg and my colleagues in the Senate to ensure its passage so that we can fill this vital need for coastal and estuarine protection.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Gregg in our introduction of legislation that would help protect and preserve the valuable coastal and estuarine lands of our Nation. Development of the Nation's coastal and estuarine areas poses an increasing threat to water quality, wildlife habitat, flood protection, and recreational opportunities. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy emphasized that intact coastal lands are vital to ensuring the ecological and economic health of coastal communities. However, as these areas are fragmented and disappear, so do the benefits they provide. The Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act (CELP) would authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as the lead Federal agency supporting State, local or private acquisition of land or conservation easements in undeveloped coastal areas in order to ensure their protection from development. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative has identified enactment of the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act as a high priority for improving our coastal resource management. This legislation builds upon the existing Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) within NOAA. The Program allows States to compete for matching funds to acquire land or easements for the protection of sensitive coastal ecosystems. The Federal funds provided through this program help leverage additional State, local and private funding. The CELCP complements private, Federal and State conservation programs. This program is based on the highly successful Forest Legacy program which is a Federal-State partnership program that supports efforts to protect environmentally sensitive forest lands. Permanent protection of lands in the coastal zone is also necessary to maintain and enhance coastal and estuarine areas for the benefit of the Nation, including protecting water quality, keeping public beachfront accessible, conserving wildlife habitat, and sustaining sport and commercial fisheries. Coastal and estuarine areas are some of the most productive ecosystems on earth. They are home to countless plants, animals, birds, and fish. These are complex ecosystems that provide a foundation for marine life as well as protection of inland areas from storm damage. Over the last 150 years the national system of estuaries has decreased in size because of our growing coastal populations and short-sighted land-use planning. Today our coastal areas are home to over 150 million Americans, about 53 percent of the U.S. population, and over 180 million people visit the coasts each year. Due to the increasing pressures from development in low-lying areas, NOAA has estimated 80 percent of our Nations' coastal waters are impaired for human use and marine life. The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) established under the Coastal Zone Management Act is a network of 27 protected estuaries throughout the United States, including the Jacques Cousteau NERRS site in New Jersey. These are pristine areas that provide public education and conservation awareness, and serve as living laboratories for scientific research. The funds provided through the CELP program established by our legislation would promote the expansion of these estuarine areas and assist in keeping coastal ecosystems healthy and productive. Federal funds help make New Jersey conservation possible. New Jersey's treasured natural resources--from the Meadowlands to the marshlands of Barnegat Bay--have substantially benefited from Federal support. The existing CELCP has aided in securing protection for over a thousand acres in New Jersey including lands for Gunning Island, Tuckerton Creek, and the Harbor Herons project. This week there will be a formal dedication of a 115-acre property, acquired with the aid of CELCP, on Potter Creek in Berkeley Township for public use and recreation. Lands have been protected in the Manahawkin Marsh, for wildlife habitat, including migratory birds along the Atlantic Flyway. In Ocean County, the CELCP helped secure the acquisition of 800 acres on Tuckerton Creek in Little Egg Harbor which is vital to protecting Atlantic white cedar stands and improving the water quality of the Barnegat Bay. These projects have successfully protected our coasts while sustaining human activity. The coastal zone is essential to our country's prosperity and well- being. The coastal and estuarine lands are areas of national importance and they are vulnerable to human activities. From 2002 through 2006 twenty-five States have benefited from the CELCP. Now is the time for Congress to authorize this program to conserve lands that are vital to our Nation. The bill Senator Gregg and I are introducing today, the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act, will ensure an ongoing partnership between Federal, State, and local governments to support the economic and natural resource base of communities through the acquisition of coastal and estuarine lands. This legislation offers the opportunity for States to protect coastal and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values and are threatened by conversion to other uses. The organizations supporting this legislation include The Trust for Public Land, The American Littoral Society, NY/NJ Baykeeper, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Land Trust Alliance, Restore America's Estuaries, American Fly Fishing Trade Association, Society for the Protection of New Hampshire's Forests, National Estuarine Research Reserve Association, Association of National Estuary Programs, The Ocean Conservancy, Coastal States Organization, The Conservation Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and the New Jersey Audubon Society. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from these groups be printed in the Record. I would like to thank Senator Gregg for his long-time leadership on this issue. I would also like to thank Senator Mikulski for her many years of support for this legislation. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Gregg and my colleagues in the Senate to ensure its passage so that we can fill this vital need for coastal and estuarine protection.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague for his leadership on this issue. I hope we can find out there are lots of leaders around here who just have not shown their intention to lead. I congratulate Senator Harkin for his hard work. People ask me why stem cell research isn't available. The people who ask me that question most frequently are the families who come to see me. I love seeing their children. I am a grandfather of 10 kids. The oldest is 13, the youngest is 3. When I look at what my responsibilities as a Senator are, I think of my children and grandchildren, and I think about everybody else's children and grandchildren at the same time. I couldn't make it good enough for my grandchildren when it comes to helping them rid themselves of a condition, or permitting them to live an easy, normal life in many cases. My oldest grandson is 13, and he is asthmatic. Whenever my daughter takes him to play sports, she always checks to see where the nearest emergency clinic is because if he starts to wheeze or he needs some help, she wants to know where to go. I see it with lots of visitors I have, like families with a diabetic child. I had one boy who was 10 years old come to my office in New Jersey. I sat around a long table with families who have a child who is diabetic. I asked the kids their responses to their disease, what is the worst part of it. They all said: Sticking your finger, and not feeling good when everybody else looks as if they are having fun. People ask me: Why can't we do something about this? We are spending billions on a war that brings us gloom and despair, and we spend billions on tax cuts for people who don't need them--but we need help. This 10-year-old boy I referred to, when I asked him what the worst part of having diabetes was, he said: I can't go to sleep-overs anymore. I said: What do you mean? He said: One time I slept over at my friend's house and during the night I got sick and he called his mother and she got mad. So my parents won't let me go to sleep-overs anymore. I am sad about that because I like my friend, but we can't do anything about that. Then he said: But I'm only going to live to 31 anyway. With that his father sat right up and said: No, no, that's not true at all. We are going to take care of you. I wish President Bush was in that office when I had some of those kids in there or when I have families with an autistic child come to meet with me. It affects everything that the family does. It would means the world to them if their child could be treated to become healthy. We have an epidemic across our country with autism. We see that 1 in every 150 families in America are affected by autism and the fact that they must go to public agencies or hire teachers or send children to particular schools. When we look at the situation, we see that stem cells have the potential to save lives and alleviate the suffering of millions of Americans. Of course we should fully fund research for embryonic stem cells regardless of when they were developed. That is common sense. But we have a President who is held captive by ideologues who are at war with science. Over 5 years ago, President Bush enacted a policy that made no scientific sense, only political sense for his base. He put a stop to the development of new stem cell lines for research. Once again, that is a devastating blow to people who have a diabetic in their family, or cancer, Parkinson's, autism, or other diseases. In New Jersey, the number of those affected by autism is staggering. In 1991, there were 234 cases of autism diagnosed. In 2005, less than 15 years later, we saw 7,400 cases of autism. We say we want to help these people, but the President says he doesn't believe in it and threatens another veto when this bill is presented to him. There is no good answer I can give these families and children. But I do assure them that I will do all I can to reverse the President's policy so we can work hard for a cure for their diseases. Tomorrow we will have the opportunity to vote to help these kids. The science is clear: Stem cell research, particularly embryonic stem cell research, has tremendous potential to help us better understand treatments and cure a number of diseases. That is why Americans overwhelmingly support stem cell research. Studies show that 7 out of 10 Americans--70 percent--favor embryonic stem cell research. Virtually every major medical scientific and patient group supports embryonic stem cell research. Organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American Diabetes Association, the Christopher Reeve Foundation, the Elizabeth Glazer Pediatric AIDs Foundation, and the list goes on and on. In my home State of New Jersey, support for stem cell research is overwhelming. In fact, Rutgers University, our State university, is one of the leading advocates of stem cell research. Our country has always been about hope, about the chance for a better life. So when President Bush talks about vetoing a stem cell research bill, it denies hope to millions of Americans. Last year, Congress passed similar legislation that would have reversed the President's policy on stem cells, but the President vetoed that bill based on what he calls ethics and morality. What is ethical about denying a cure to children suffering from diabetes? Is there anything moral about denying people who have paralysis the chance to perhaps walk again? Any real ethical issues are addressed by this bill. New stem lines will come from embryos donated by fertility patients under strict guidelines. They will not be embryos created for research. What we are talking about in this bill are embryos that would otherwise be disposed of, discarded, thrown away. We stand at a crossroads in America. We can either take the position that cells in a petri dish are a gift for healing or we can throw away the opportunity to alleviate human suffering. The men, women, and children who suffer from diabetes and other life-threatening conditions are racing against time. Recent statistics show that one out of three children born today will suffer diabetes in their lifetime. We have wasted so much time and opportunity already, between the President's policy and his veto last year. Those who would benefit from the potential of embryonic stem cell research need the President to put aside politics and deal with the facts. I would love to see President Bush meet some of these families or see the children who come to meet with me who are diabetic. We have had 300 children in one of the meeting rooms in the Senate. To see those children, how beautiful they are, and how desperately they want help. Yet for some reason, our Government wont' help out. We see the President again threatening a veto and saying he will not permit funding for this research. It is a terrible thing. I salute the bipartisan leadership of Senators Harkin and Specter on this issue. Everybody in Congress and in this country has had contact with someone who is suffering from a condition who desperately needs help. It is hard to understand why we wouldn't have 100 votes in this body to say, yes, we want to do whatever we can for children who are sick or children who are likely to encounter these problems in the future. Yet the President has insisted on turning his back on these opportunities. It is a pity. Mr. President, I yield the floor.